Chairperson, I want to thank the hon members for their contribution. I am surprised, and I think that it must be because Parliament is so unrepresentative now, that nobody picked up on the fact that it is appropriate that we extend the age category to people who were 30 years old on 1 December 1996, because this is Youth Month, and many of the beneficiaries of the amended legislation would fall into the category of youth; and it is that contribution that I think is so important to single out in the debate.
Some of the statements by hon members merit further comment. The hon Bekker seems to argue that the IFP was excluded. Yes, they were excluded - consciously so - in the legislation, because nobody from the IFP was prevented from contributing to their own pension by virtue of banning, banishment, imprisonment or, in fact, as the case may be, death in detention.
This was very specific and conscious, and I think that should cover the hon Rajbally's comments as well. It is not a general thing that one would say, "Well, I was in the struggle so I must get a pension." The principal Act is clear about that objective. You must have been prevented by the actions of somebody else from contributing towards your own retirement. I think what we are effecting now is a continuation of that same issue, so it was not an agreement made in a smoke-filled room.
I think it is conscious of what contributed to delivering democracy in this country, and so it was, I think, that the principal Act was indeed crafted. The key challenge before us is the administration, because the big difference between the present and that point after the passage of the principal Act in 1996, was that at some stage the organisations to whom these people belonged still had in-house administration records, which were still fresh.
The challenge now is dealing with what the hon Johnson said is to prevent at all costs that some zamazamas or scammers will come in and try to take advantage of this. Our responsibility is to treasure the memory of those who contributed by ensuring that only they should benefit from this.
It is, therefore, not a responsibility that can be left to the Special Pensions Administration sitting in the National Treasury or in the pensions administration. It is a responsibility, in the first instance, of the organisations to which these individuals have belonged and still belong, to ensure that the administration is correct and that only the good pass through the eye of the needle.
I think that, similarly, we would look to Parliament and ask of it to maintain a keen interest to ensure as we proceed with the process of advertising - because very clear requests were made in the course of the hearings about ensuring that we communicate this in vernacular languages to ensure that we get the message out to people - that all of this is complied with. I note also in the report of the committee that some of my colleagues, like the Minister of Labour, are called upon to also develop the training programmes.
I agree with the point that mere access to a source of finance is inadequate. It is the skilling of these individuals across a range of disciplines that would be important, and I think these are issues that we will take forward along with the report here that the Minister of Finance should develop and table quarterly reports on implementation. This is something that I and my successors will, of course, have to comply with. The letter and spirit of that intention of the portfolio committee is obviously correct. Thank you to all the parties for supporting the Bill. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.